Simon

This.
 
I'm firmly and completely in support of the push against sexual harassment (which has become endemic in our society)...but it needs to be tempered with due process and reason if it's going to avoid becoming the witch hunt that opponents have decried.  Intent of the individual needs to be part of the equation...and yes, that makes things very (VERY) tricky.  
 
We also need to stop looking to equate or distract.  It doesn't matter what Franken did (or what happens as a result) when looking to Moore.  Or vice versa. They're two different people and two different incidents/allegations.  If I go out and attack someone on the street, I don't get to point to someone else and say "they did it, too" as some sort of defense for my actions.

What I (personally) think should happen:  
 
Franken should go before the ethics committee (which he himself has recommended).  They will determine the severity of his actions and appropriate measures to be taken in response.  Unless something radical changes in the story, it is likely that he will have consequences (censure, removal from committees, etc.)  and either resign of his own choosing or have major issues in the next election (resulting in much the same). This is the type of response that we expect and want to see -- our elected officials are being held to a high standard (or should be) and are accountable for their actions both during and before their terms of office.
 
Moore needs to have the same thing occur...but he's currently in an election process. It would be best for his party (and Congress in general) for him to drop out.  Pushing forward presents a decidedly negative appearance for the GOP in regards to their response to sexual harassment. Should he continue in the election, the GOP needs to take a very strong stand on the issue -- he's essentially forcing their hand. They've more or less done this within Congress (though nothing from Trump).  Should he manage to win the election, then the ethics committee and Congress in general need to become involved, likely resulting in his ouster. 
 
Any other course of action for either individual gives credence to the "other side" when they try to distract/detract from a given situation by pointing fingers.

This.
 
I'm firmly and completely in support of the push against sexual harassment (which has become endemic in our society)...but it needs to be tempered with due process and reason if it's going to avoid becoming the witch hunt that opponents have decried.  Intent of the individual needs to be part of the equation...and yes, that makes things very (VERY) tricky.  
 
We also need to stop looking to equate or distract.  It doesn't matter what Franken did (or what happens as a result) when looking to Moore.  Or vice versa. They're two different people and two different incidents/allegations.  If I go out and attack someone on the street, I don't get to point to someone else and say "they did it, too" as some sort of defense for my actions.

What I (personally) think should happen:  
 
Franken should go before the ethics committee (which he himself has recommended).  They will determine the severity of his actions and appropriate measures to be taken in response.  Unless something radical changes in the story, it is likely that he will have consequences (censure, removal from committees, etc.)  and either resign of his own choosing or have major issues in the next election (resulting in much the same). This is the type of response that we expect and want to see -- our elected officials are being held to a high standard (or should be) and are accountable for their actions both during and before their terms of office.
 
Moore needs to have the same thing occur...but he's currently in an election process. It would be best for his party (and Congress in general) for him to drop out.  Pushing forward presents a decidedly negative appearance for the GOP in regards to their response to sexual harassment. Should he continue in the election, the GOP needs to take a very strong stand on the issue -- he's essentially forcing their hand. They've more or less done this within Congress (though nothing from Trump).  Should he manage to win the election, then the ethics committee and Congress in general need to become involved, likely resulting in his ouster. 
 
Any other course of action for either individual gives credence to the "other side" when they try to distract/detract from a given situation by pointing fingers.

This.
 
I'm firmly and completely in support of the push against sexual harassment (which has become endemic in our society)...but it needs to be tempered with due process and reason if it's going to avoid becoming the witch hunt that opponents have decried.  Intent of the individual needs to be part of the equation...and yes, that makes things very (VERY) tricky.  
 
We also need to stop looking to equate or distract.  It doesn't matter what Franken did (or what happens as a result) when looking to Moore.  Or vice versa. They're two different people and two different incidents/allegations.  If I go out and attack someone on the street, I don't get to point to someone else and say "they did it, too" as some sort of defense for my actions.

What I (personally) think should happen:  
 
Franken should go before the ethics committee (which he himself has recommended).  They will determine the severity of his actions and appropriate measures to be taken in response.  Unless something radical changes in the story, it is likely that he will have consequences (censure, removal from committees, etc.)  and either resign of his own choosing or have major issues in the next election (resulting in much the same). This is the type of response that we expect and want to see -- our elected officials are being held to a high standard (or should be) and are accountable for their actions both during and before their terms of office.
 
Moore needs to have the same thing occur...but he's currently in an election process. It would be best for his party (and Congress in general) for him to drop out.  Pushing forward presents a decidedly negative appearance for the GOP in regards to their response to sexual harassment. Should he continue in the election, the GOP needs to take a very strong stand on the issue -- he's essentially forcing their hand. They've more or less done this within Congress (though nothing from Trump).  Should he manage to win the election, then the ethics committee and Congress in general need to become involved, likely resulting in his ouster. 
 
Any other course of action for either individual gives credence to the "other side" when they try to distract/detract from a given situation by pointing fingers.

This.
 
I'm firmly and completely in support of the push against sexual harassment (which has become endemic in our society)...but it needs to be tempered with due process and reason if it's going to avoid becoming the witch hunt that opponents have decried.  Intent of the individual needs to be part of the equation...and yes, that makes things very (VERY) tricky.  
 
We also need to stop looking to equate or distract.  It doesn't matter what Franken did (or what happens as a result) when looking to Moore.  Or vice versa. They're two different people and two different incidents/allegations.  If I go out and attack someone on the street, I don't get to point to someone else and say "they did it, too" as some sort of defense for my actions.

What I (personally) think should happen:  
 
Franken should go before the ethics committee (which he himself has recommended).  They will determine the severity of his actions and appropriate measures to be taken in response.  Unless something radical changes in the story, it is likely that he will have consequences (censure, removal from committees, etc.)  and either resign of his own choosing or have major issues in the next election (resulting in much the same). This is the type of response that we expect and want to see -- our elected officials are being held to a high standard (or should be) and are accountable for their actions both during and before their terms of office.
 
Moore needs to have the same thing occur...but he's currently in an election process. It would be best for his party (and Congress in general) for him to drop out.  Pushing forward presents a decidedly negative appearance for the GOP in regards to their response to sexual harassment. Should he continue in the election, the GOP needs to take a very strong stand on the issue -- he's essentially forcing their hand. They've more or less done this within Congress (though nothing from Trump).  Should he manage to win the election, then the ethics committee and Congress in general need to become involved, likely resulting in his ouster. 
 
Any other course of action for either individual gives credence to the "other side" when they try to distract/detract from a given situation by pointing fingers.

And I do appreciate your acknowledging the reasonableness of the debate, and presenting your positions in a sensible fashion.   I don't normally engage in point-by-point rebuttals because they tend to degenerate into endless spirals; but since you asked for clarification I feel I owe it to you to provide it.
 
Calling any party in the United States "responsible" for misuse of firearms is something I've been trying very hard to avoid, because finger-pointing isn't accurate and just inflames people. If I failed in this case I apologize. Gun violence in the United States is a complex problem with many causes; but I do hold that everyone who isn't part of the solution is part of the problem. However, I have to strongly disagree with you that it's incumbent on individuals to seek out information that could change their minds, because it's not just individuals engaging in the activity who experience the negative consequences of it. All of society pays the price, both in dollars and in lives. I'm of an age to remember when smoking was ubiquitous and even encouraged, to remember when people didn't drive with seat belts because they wrinkled their clothes, to remember when every young person knew someone who died because they drank and drove. And I remember the massive public media campaigns highlighting the dangers of those activities, organized by governments with government funding, justified not just for altruistic reasons, but because their fallout cost tax dollars. The process took many years, but over time it built momentum, until attitudes finally did change. Nothing would have changed if we gave up the effort because it was hard.
 
But to get that kind of campaign going, every person who wants to see a change in attitude toward guns has to get pro-active. It has to be a group effort, a chorus of voices. And it has to get smart. The  National Rifle Association has a membership of five million. Five. Out of a population of 325 million.They didn't start out having such a disproportionate political influence. Spreading an emotional fear-mongering message is certainly part of their effectiveness; but another big factor is organized motivation. As soon as they hear of any legislative movement anywhere in the country toward restricting firearm use in any way or degree, they're on the 'phone and Internet to their local members, telling them to contact their representative to insist that restriction be killed. The representative is flooded with calls against the law, so they think their constituents are against it. The (I believe) far larger moderate part of the American public has to get behind the message of reason, and keep speaking loud and proud until the vote-counters in government, and the ad-revenue-counters in media, start taking notice. Then we may start to see advertising and elected officials singing a different tune, and the "wall to wall stupid" start to crack.
 
Look, in my country of Canada we have no tradition or mystique of gun ownership. Hand guns have always been considered an adjunct of law enforcement. Those of us who own long guns view them as tools, to be used when and where appropriate. And our per capita gun violence is a small fraction of what it is in the United States. That pattern is repeated in countries around the world. Your neighbors here look on the passions of the gun debate in the US with bewilderment and consternation, because we live the reality that it doesn't have to be that way.

Does Waikiki really have some of the worst traffic in the nation?  

As a recovered Chicago resident, I'm honestly curious...
 
(currently loving a bad rush hour occurring when turkeys/deer/geese/ducks decide to cross the road and take their sweet time doing it...resulting in a 5 minute delay.    Worst we've had is the horror of getting stuck behind a tractor as they're switching fields....and they tend to mount big pointy things on the front to discourage folks from getting too obstinate...or pick up hay rounds, never could tell which)

Now now...I'm sure that Michael will post some references for the information that he's citing.  Especially after being warned against posting hyperbole a couple of times now.

Oh, do we need to talk....
 
I have much to teach, young padawan.
 
(currently finishing off a "barley legal" Laphroaig 18 yr.)
.
.
.
.
.
(though I do have a home brewed East Flanders Red on tap currently...)

Main issue: prefabs and character files (.hdp and .hdc, respectively) have a large amount of similarity, but they _are_ different. Simply renaming a .hdc file to .hdp is going to cause issues — as noted. Don’t do that. If you _have_ done that and run into errors AND have HD set to reload prefabs on launch, you’re going to need to either delete the file in question (to prevent HD from trying to load it on launch) or delete your appPrefs.xml file (to remove all settings that tell HD what to do on launch beyond the basics).

Heroic Halfwit will no longer be joining us on the forums.

Heroic Halfwit will no longer be joining us on the forums.

Careful, guys, we don't want to draw the Wrath of Dan.
 
But I will add, as many mental health-care professionals have pointed out, that people can have significant personality flaws which still don't amount to a clinical diagnosis of mental illness, or critically impair their capacity to function in society. In other words, features about Trump which you may consider impact his function as President, may not in themselves be sufficient grounds to question his mental competence.

Easy comparison here as a way to show that there is no equivalence between the two sides (and why attempting to draw one is offensive in the extreme):

ISIS shares a large amount of similarity with Neo-Nazis.  Both claim to religious justification for hate and terrorist actions. Both seek the elimination or subjugation of entire races and/or religions. The main difference between the two is the color of the skin of their members.  Neo-Nazis are credited with more terrorist attacks on American soil than ISIS and are more of a concern for DHS and the FBI.
 
Now...picture an ISIS march in NC.  ISIS members and supporters marching armed and calling for jihad on all non-Muslims.  Feel free to add some ISIS sympathizers (but not active ISIS members) in with the group.  They're not armed and they're not really into the whole jihad thing, but they think that ISIS makes some good points and want to show their support by marching with them.  Continue the formation of this picture by having an active terror attack take place during this rally -- an ISIS member drives a car into a group of counter protesters.
 
If you think there is any "equivalence" to be drawn here (the counter protesters were armed/the counter protesters were angry/ the counter protesters were yelling at the ISIS marchers), you're no better than the ISIS sympathizers.  And we lock them up.
 
Why is it different for neo-Nazis? 

Easy comparison here as a way to show that there is no equivalence between the two sides (and why attempting to draw one is offensive in the extreme):

ISIS shares a large amount of similarity with Neo-Nazis.  Both claim to religious justification for hate and terrorist actions. Both seek the elimination or subjugation of entire races and/or religions. The main difference between the two is the color of the skin of their members.  Neo-Nazis are credited with more terrorist attacks on American soil than ISIS and are more of a concern for DHS and the FBI.
 
Now...picture an ISIS march in NC.  ISIS members and supporters marching armed and calling for jihad on all non-Muslims.  Feel free to add some ISIS sympathizers (but not active ISIS members) in with the group.  They're not armed and they're not really into the whole jihad thing, but they think that ISIS makes some good points and want to show their support by marching with them.  Continue the formation of this picture by having an active terror attack take place during this rally -- an ISIS member drives a car into a group of counter protesters.
 
If you think there is any "equivalence" to be drawn here (the counter protesters were armed/the counter protesters were angry/ the counter protesters were yelling at the ISIS marchers), you're no better than the ISIS sympathizers.  And we lock them up.
 
Why is it different for neo-Nazis? 

Easy comparison here as a way to show that there is no equivalence between the two sides (and why attempting to draw one is offensive in the extreme):

ISIS shares a large amount of similarity with Neo-Nazis.  Both claim to religious justification for hate and terrorist actions. Both seek the elimination or subjugation of entire races and/or religions. The main difference between the two is the color of the skin of their members.  Neo-Nazis are credited with more terrorist attacks on American soil than ISIS and are more of a concern for DHS and the FBI.
 
Now...picture an ISIS march in NC.  ISIS members and supporters marching armed and calling for jihad on all non-Muslims.  Feel free to add some ISIS sympathizers (but not active ISIS members) in with the group.  They're not armed and they're not really into the whole jihad thing, but they think that ISIS makes some good points and want to show their support by marching with them.  Continue the formation of this picture by having an active terror attack take place during this rally -- an ISIS member drives a car into a group of counter protesters.
 
If you think there is any "equivalence" to be drawn here (the counter protesters were armed/the counter protesters were angry/ the counter protesters were yelling at the ISIS marchers), you're no better than the ISIS sympathizers.  And we lock them up.
 
Why is it different for neo-Nazis? 

Easy comparison here as a way to show that there is no equivalence between the two sides (and why attempting to draw one is offensive in the extreme):

ISIS shares a large amount of similarity with Neo-Nazis.  Both claim to religious justification for hate and terrorist actions. Both seek the elimination or subjugation of entire races and/or religions. The main difference between the two is the color of the skin of their members.  Neo-Nazis are credited with more terrorist attacks on American soil than ISIS and are more of a concern for DHS and the FBI.
 
Now...picture an ISIS march in NC.  ISIS members and supporters marching armed and calling for jihad on all non-Muslims.  Feel free to add some ISIS sympathizers (but not active ISIS members) in with the group.  They're not armed and they're not really into the whole jihad thing, but they think that ISIS makes some good points and want to show their support by marching with them.  Continue the formation of this picture by having an active terror attack take place during this rally -- an ISIS member drives a car into a group of counter protesters.
 
If you think there is any "equivalence" to be drawn here (the counter protesters were armed/the counter protesters were angry/ the counter protesters were yelling at the ISIS marchers), you're no better than the ISIS sympathizers.  And we lock them up.
 
Why is it different for neo-Nazis? 

Easy comparison here as a way to show that there is no equivalence between the two sides (and why attempting to draw one is offensive in the extreme):

ISIS shares a large amount of similarity with Neo-Nazis.  Both claim to religious justification for hate and terrorist actions. Both seek the elimination or subjugation of entire races and/or religions. The main difference between the two is the color of the skin of their members.  Neo-Nazis are credited with more terrorist attacks on American soil than ISIS and are more of a concern for DHS and the FBI.
 
Now...picture an ISIS march in NC.  ISIS members and supporters marching armed and calling for jihad on all non-Muslims.  Feel free to add some ISIS sympathizers (but not active ISIS members) in with the group.  They're not armed and they're not really into the whole jihad thing, but they think that ISIS makes some good points and want to show their support by marching with them.  Continue the formation of this picture by having an active terror attack take place during this rally -- an ISIS member drives a car into a group of counter protesters.
 
If you think there is any "equivalence" to be drawn here (the counter protesters were armed/the counter protesters were angry/ the counter protesters were yelling at the ISIS marchers), you're no better than the ISIS sympathizers.  And we lock them up.
 
Why is it different for neo-Nazis? 

Easy comparison here as a way to show that there is no equivalence between the two sides (and why attempting to draw one is offensive in the extreme):

ISIS shares a large amount of similarity with Neo-Nazis.  Both claim to religious justification for hate and terrorist actions. Both seek the elimination or subjugation of entire races and/or religions. The main difference between the two is the color of the skin of their members.  Neo-Nazis are credited with more terrorist attacks on American soil than ISIS and are more of a concern for DHS and the FBI.
 
Now...picture an ISIS march in NC.  ISIS members and supporters marching armed and calling for jihad on all non-Muslims.  Feel free to add some ISIS sympathizers (but not active ISIS members) in with the group.  They're not armed and they're not really into the whole jihad thing, but they think that ISIS makes some good points and want to show their support by marching with them.  Continue the formation of this picture by having an active terror attack take place during this rally -- an ISIS member drives a car into a group of counter protesters.
 
If you think there is any "equivalence" to be drawn here (the counter protesters were armed/the counter protesters were angry/ the counter protesters were yelling at the ISIS marchers), you're no better than the ISIS sympathizers.  And we lock them up.
 
Why is it different for neo-Nazis? 

Easy comparison here as a way to show that there is no equivalence between the two sides (and why attempting to draw one is offensive in the extreme):

ISIS shares a large amount of similarity with Neo-Nazis.  Both claim to religious justification for hate and terrorist actions. Both seek the elimination or subjugation of entire races and/or religions. The main difference between the two is the color of the skin of their members.  Neo-Nazis are credited with more terrorist attacks on American soil than ISIS and are more of a concern for DHS and the FBI.
 
Now...picture an ISIS march in NC.  ISIS members and supporters marching armed and calling for jihad on all non-Muslims.  Feel free to add some ISIS sympathizers (but not active ISIS members) in with the group.  They're not armed and they're not really into the whole jihad thing, but they think that ISIS makes some good points and want to show their support by marching with them.  Continue the formation of this picture by having an active terror attack take place during this rally -- an ISIS member drives a car into a group of counter protesters.
 
If you think there is any "equivalence" to be drawn here (the counter protesters were armed/the counter protesters were angry/ the counter protesters were yelling at the ISIS marchers), you're no better than the ISIS sympathizers.  And we lock them up.
 
Why is it different for neo-Nazis? 

Easy comparison here as a way to show that there is no equivalence between the two sides (and why attempting to draw one is offensive in the extreme):

ISIS shares a large amount of similarity with Neo-Nazis.  Both claim to religious justification for hate and terrorist actions. Both seek the elimination or subjugation of entire races and/or religions. The main difference between the two is the color of the skin of their members.  Neo-Nazis are credited with more terrorist attacks on American soil than ISIS and are more of a concern for DHS and the FBI.
 
Now...picture an ISIS march in NC.  ISIS members and supporters marching armed and calling for jihad on all non-Muslims.  Feel free to add some ISIS sympathizers (but not active ISIS members) in with the group.  They're not armed and they're not really into the whole jihad thing, but they think that ISIS makes some good points and want to show their support by marching with them.  Continue the formation of this picture by having an active terror attack take place during this rally -- an ISIS member drives a car into a group of counter protesters.
 
If you think there is any "equivalence" to be drawn here (the counter protesters were armed/the counter protesters were angry/ the counter protesters were yelling at the ISIS marchers), you're no better than the ISIS sympathizers.  And we lock them up.
 
Why is it different for neo-Nazis? 

Easy comparison here as a way to show that there is no equivalence between the two sides (and why attempting to draw one is offensive in the extreme):

ISIS shares a large amount of similarity with Neo-Nazis.  Both claim to religious justification for hate and terrorist actions. Both seek the elimination or subjugation of entire races and/or religions. The main difference between the two is the color of the skin of their members.  Neo-Nazis are credited with more terrorist attacks on American soil than ISIS and are more of a concern for DHS and the FBI.
 
Now...picture an ISIS march in NC.  ISIS members and supporters marching armed and calling for jihad on all non-Muslims.  Feel free to add some ISIS sympathizers (but not active ISIS members) in with the group.  They're not armed and they're not really into the whole jihad thing, but they think that ISIS makes some good points and want to show their support by marching with them.  Continue the formation of this picture by having an active terror attack take place during this rally -- an ISIS member drives a car into a group of counter protesters.
 
If you think there is any "equivalence" to be drawn here (the counter protesters were armed/the counter protesters were angry/ the counter protesters were yelling at the ISIS marchers), you're no better than the ISIS sympathizers.  And we lock them up.
 
Why is it different for neo-Nazis? 

Easy comparison here as a way to show that there is no equivalence between the two sides (and why attempting to draw one is offensive in the extreme):

ISIS shares a large amount of similarity with Neo-Nazis.  Both claim to religious justification for hate and terrorist actions. Both seek the elimination or subjugation of entire races and/or religions. The main difference between the two is the color of the skin of their members.  Neo-Nazis are credited with more terrorist attacks on American soil than ISIS and are more of a concern for DHS and the FBI.
 
Now...picture an ISIS march in NC.  ISIS members and supporters marching armed and calling for jihad on all non-Muslims.  Feel free to add some ISIS sympathizers (but not active ISIS members) in with the group.  They're not armed and they're not really into the whole jihad thing, but they think that ISIS makes some good points and want to show their support by marching with them.  Continue the formation of this picture by having an active terror attack take place during this rally -- an ISIS member drives a car into a group of counter protesters.
 
If you think there is any "equivalence" to be drawn here (the counter protesters were armed/the counter protesters were angry/ the counter protesters were yelling at the ISIS marchers), you're no better than the ISIS sympathizers.  And we lock them up.
 
Why is it different for neo-Nazis? 

Easy comparison here as a way to show that there is no equivalence between the two sides (and why attempting to draw one is offensive in the extreme):

ISIS shares a large amount of similarity with Neo-Nazis.  Both claim to religious justification for hate and terrorist actions. Both seek the elimination or subjugation of entire races and/or religions. The main difference between the two is the color of the skin of their members.  Neo-Nazis are credited with more terrorist attacks on American soil than ISIS and are more of a concern for DHS and the FBI.
 
Now...picture an ISIS march in NC.  ISIS members and supporters marching armed and calling for jihad on all non-Muslims.  Feel free to add some ISIS sympathizers (but not active ISIS members) in with the group.  They're not armed and they're not really into the whole jihad thing, but they think that ISIS makes some good points and want to show their support by marching with them.  Continue the formation of this picture by having an active terror attack take place during this rally -- an ISIS member drives a car into a group of counter protesters.
 
If you think there is any "equivalence" to be drawn here (the counter protesters were armed/the counter protesters were angry/ the counter protesters were yelling at the ISIS marchers), you're no better than the ISIS sympathizers.  And we lock them up.
 
Why is it different for neo-Nazis? 

For those having issues with HD appearing too small under high resolution screens (when running Windows), an update has been posted which enables command-line flags to set the default font size throughout the application.  To use, you need to launch HD from the command line (or create a batch script) with the following:
javaw -jar HD6.jar [font size] for example, the following would set the default font size throughout the application to 18pt:
javaw -jar HD6.jar 18 Windows does not appear to pass font scaling along to Java, hence the issue under high resolution screens.  Moreover, there are known issues within Java in attempting to change the font size once the UI has been rendered.  This is the reason that the command line flags are needed rather than a new application preferences setting.

JRE 6 or better....which at this point means any reasonably recent full Java installation.